Pre-trial Order

Sec. 4. Pre-trial order. – After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue an order
reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated,
and evidence marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not
disposed of, and control the course f the action
during the trial, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice.

WHAT IS A PRE-TRIAL ORDER?

> It is an order issued by the court after the pre-trial conference containing:
o A recital of the actions taken
o The facts stipulated
o The evidence marked

> The pre-trial order binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not
disposed of, and controls the course of action during the trial, unless modified by
the court to prevent manifest injustice

San juan v sandiganbayan

Facts: sandiganbayan issued a pre-trial order, whereby both parties reserved the right to present
additional evidence. The court declared “This Pre-Trial Order shall bind the parties, limit the issues and
control the course of the trial, unless modified by the Court to prevent manifest injustice.”

Instead of proceeding with the presentation of evidence, the office of the special prosecutor filed a
motion for additional marking of documentary exhibits.

Petitioner filed an opposition, that the prosecutions attempt to introduce additional evidence after Pre-
Trial has been completed, without petitioner having been confronted by such evidence, violates
petitioners fundamental rights under the Constitution; that petitioners right to due process has been
violated by the presentation of the prosecutions additional evidence when such pieces of evidence
ought to have been presented during the pre-trial of the case;

Issue: was there grave abuse of discretion when sandiganbayan granted motion?

Held: Apparent from the foregoing is the fact that while the pre-trial has effectively been terminated,
the Court gave both the prosecution and the accused the opportunity to submit comments to the Pre-
Trial Order or to modify their submissions or in some instances, even to withdraw the stipulations they
made during the pre-trial. The Courts position is consistent with the exercise of its discretion to decide
how best to dispense justice in accordance with the circumstances of the proceedings before it. The
decision to grant the prosecutions motion for additional marking of documentary exhibits is another
exercise of this judicial prerogative, which prerogative was made known to the parties in the Pre-Trial
Order dated November 7, 2005, when the Court stated that such was subject to modification in order
to prevent manifest injustice.

While it is true that pre-trial has already been terminated, records

show that, before the Pre-Trial Order dated November 7, 2005 was
issued, the Court made clear to all the parties, considering the numerous
documentary evidence sought to be marked and presented by the parties,
that the said Order was without prejudice to the comment [on the Pre-
Trial Order] of the prosecution and the accused; that is, the Court may
still accept any modification of the said Order from both the prosecution
and the accused. Upon request of the parties, the Court gave the
prosecution and the accused a period of time to file a formal
manifestation with respect to some changes they would like to propose
in the Pre-Trial Order notwithstanding the commencement of the trial.[23]

Thus, petitioner can still file his objections to the documentary evidence
during trial on the merits of the case.

Finally, there is no basis to petitioners contention that the additional pieces

of documentary evidence were surprise evidence because during the filing of their
respective pre-trial briefs, both parties have made reservations to present additional
documentary and testimonial evidence, as may be necessary in the course of the
trial;[24] such reservations were incorporated in the Pre-Trial Order.
 Republic of the Philippines
Sixth Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch___
Iloilo City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASE NO.______

Plaintiff, FOR:
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

- Versus-

TITO CRUZ AND VIC CRUZ,

Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL ORDER

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

t h r o u g h t h e u n d e r s i g n e d C i t y Prosecutor, before this Honorable Court, most
respectfully submit this Pre-Trial Brief:

SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS AND STIPULATION OF FACTS

The following are the admitted facts:

1. The identities of those charged in the information and th

a t o f t h e persons arraigned are one and the same;

2. the identity of Joey Cruz, the victim;

3. the killing of the victim;

4. the date and places of the commission of the crime.

EVIDENCE MARKED

1. Affidavit of the cashier Geraldine Demetri

Purpose: to prove that she was on-duty when the robbery took
place and that one of the accused pointed a gun at her, who eventually
declared hold-up while the other emptied the cash registers and took some
grocery stuffs;

2. Affidavit of customer Bea Robles

 Purpose: to prove that she was one of the customers at the time
the robbery took place and that she saw and identified the accused by their faces;

2. Affidavit of customer Paris Michaels

Purpose: to corroborate the testimonies of Geraldine Demetri and Bea

Robles;

3. Autopsy Report of Joey Cruz issued by Iloilo Mission Hospital

Purpose: to prove the extent of the injury and the cause of death of the
victim;

4. Blotter Report of Jaro Police Station (ICP-PP3)

Purpose: to prove that the police authority received a report that a robbery
took place at Iloilo Supermart, located at Tabuk Suba, Jaro, Iloilo City.

5. Affidavit of Romeo V. Benamarca

Purpose: To prove that he personally heard a gun shot from an

abandoned ricem i l l a n d a c t u a l l y s a w t h e a c c u s e d h o l d i n g
a g u n a n d t h e d e a d b o d y o f t h e deceased which subsequently
followed the arrest of the accused.

6. Paraffin test result

Purpose: To prove that accused became positive of gun powder burns.

7. Anatomical Sketch

Purpose: To prove which part of the victim’s body was shot

a n d t h e n a t u r e , extent and location of wound
.
8. Ballistics Test result

Purpose: To prove that the slug recovered from the victim’s body came from
the same gun which was recovered from the possession of Tito Cruz.

ISSUES
1.Whether or not the accused committed the crime charged;2.Whether or
not they were guilty thereof.

WITNESSES
1. Geraldine Demetri to testify that a robbery took place;
2. Bea Robles to testify that she was one of the customers of the
I l o i l o Supermart at the time the robbery took place;

3. Paris Michaels to testify that she was one of the customers of

I l o i l o Supemart at the time the robbery took place.

4. Romeo V. Benamarca to testify that he was the police officer who wentto the
scene of the crime and arrested the accused.

5. Dra. Isabel Cenon to testify that she conducted the post

m o r t e m examination of Joey Cruz and to attest to the veracity of
h e r f i n d i n g s i n t h e autopsy report.

6. Police Senior Inspector Anthony Villar to testify that he conducted

theb a l l i s t i c s e x a m i n a t i o n a n d t o a t t e s t t o t h e v e r a c i t y o f h i s
f i n d i n g s i n t h e s a i d report.

7. Chemist Dionisia Paqui to testify that she conducted a paraffin test

tothe accused and to attest to the veracity of her findings in the said report.

TRIALDATES
Specifically all Fridays of the month, with the regular appearance of
theundersigned city prosecutors before this Honorable Court.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Iloilo City, Iloilo, Philippines, July 4, 2008.